[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3145-3149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          EDUCATION IN AMERICA

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, during the course of this 1 hour I will be 
yielding to other Members on this side of the aisle. We will be 
discussing a range of topics, primarily focusing on questions of 
education.
  Let me say at the outset, Mr. President, last week I journeyed back 
to my home State of Illinois--a welcome interlude from our impeachment 
proceedings--to address issues which I consider to be very critical to 
the future not only of my State but this Nation. In the span of 4 days 
I visited a variety of communities and had nine different meetings with 
educators, teachers, administrators, students, parents, and interested 
people in the community to talk about the state of education. It was an 
eye-opener.
  As we started to discuss education from a brand-new perspective, to 
throw out some of the assumptions and some of the rules, to take a look 
at education today, I found that there were

[[Page 3146]]

three basic fallacies in educational thinking today which these 
educators understood and many in Congress do not. The first fallacy is 
the belief that children start to learn at age 6, and therefore, we 
have a social responsibility to put children in school at age 6.
  Any parent will tell you, and certainly those who study the issue can 
confirm it, children start learning at a much earlier age. Teacher 
after teacher told me of students who showed up in kindergarten already 
far behind where they should be--students who had fallen behind because 
of family problems or the lack of family initiative or the lack of 
exposure to an educating environment. Of course, it took the teachers a 
long time to bring these kids up to speed. They challenged the premise, 
the assumption, that education starts at the age of 6.
  When I asked my staff, incidentally, to research why we put kids in 
school at age 6, they couldn't find a reason. We looked at history. We 
asked the experts. They couldn't come up with a reason. The best we 
came up with is most kids can sit still at age 6, and in the old days 
that is what a classroom was all about--kids sitting still at their 
desks. It is not the modern threshold and should not be the threshold 
education of decision.
  The second notion we challenged is the premise of the schoolday. Why 
on God's green Earth are students dismissed from school at 3 in the 
afternoon? Why? There was a day, of course, when they would go home to 
a parent or their parents, but the days of Ozzie and Harriet with 
cookies and milk waiting for the kids, I am afraid, are long gone. Most 
kids have no adult supervision. I am not surprised to find reports from 
those who know that kids, between the hours of 3 o'clock and the 
arrival of an adult for supervision at, say, 6 o'clock, are the kids 
most prone to get in trouble--kids who are involved in scrapes with the 
law, exposure to drugs, gang activity, teen pregnancy. These things are 
happening during unsupervised hours.
  That is why when we discussed in our proposals on Capitol Hill 
afterschool programs, it is in the best interest of all of these 
children--those who are coming out of school who need remedial help, as 
well as those who are doing well in school and need enrichment.
  The final point that came through loud and clear is that summer 
months with 3 months of vacation is something that we all look forward 
to as kids, but it doesn't make as much sense anymore. There was a time 
when kids needed the summer months off to go work on the farm. Not many 
kids do that anymore. Frankly, kids need an opportunity to do something 
constructive, positive, and supervised during the summer months, as 
well.
  I am happy the democratic proposal on education addresses these three 
issues and addresses many others. At this point, I will yield to 
several of my colleagues who have joined me on the floor.
  I see my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. I am happy you 
have joined in this discussion. I yield to the Senator as much time as 
she needs to express her thoughts on this issue.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask my colleague if he would engage in a colloquy. I 
don't have a speech, but I was so moved by what the Senator just 
described as what we need to do.
  Oftentimes I wonder if the Senator would agree that what we see 
happening here with the leadership on the Republican side is that they 
know that education is a key issue and they bring before the Senate 
these very narrow bills. For example, last time we had a bill that 
would have given a benefit of about $7 a year, allowing some children 
to get $7 more to go to a private school. We were arguing that we 
needed a broader vision.
  I say to my friend, does he not see this in somewhat the same 
fashion? We have a narrow bill when, as the Senator says, we need to 
look at afterschool, we need to look at more teachers, see that the 
classrooms are smaller; we need to look at what is happening to kids 
when they need mentoring. We have to look at what kind of classrooms 
they are in. And my colleague misses Senator Moseley-Braun, who worked 
so hard on school construction. I wanted to ask my friend if he saw a 
pattern here developing where certain folks take a poll and they see 
there is an important issue, and they come back with a very narrow 
answer when what we need is a broader vision for the next century.
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator from California. There is no 
doubt that the funding for education is primarily State and local. The 
responsibility follows the funding. But we are remiss at the Federal 
level if we don't realize we have an important role here. As I have 
traveled around and have spoken to school administrators, the source of 
the funding was secondary. They were talking about solving problems and 
what to do with those problems.
  I see that we have been joined by the Senator from Washington, 
Senator Murray, who was a teacher in the classroom before she came to 
the Senate. I welcome her to join us in this colloquy. She knows, as 
well, that there are practical problems. When the administration starts 
talking about technology in schools, they are sometimes heartened by 
the fact that they have the new computers, but they quickly add, 
``Senator, don't forget, we have to bring the teachers up to speed 
now.'' Many teachers my age, as decrepit as I am, and even older, are 
trying to become well versed in technology in order to keep up with the 
students. If the kids don't get the technology and the teachers don't 
get the training to give it to them, then we are all going to be 
losers. I agree, that is a central part of this.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to finish quickly because I 
want to give the Senator from Washington the floor.
  When I think about kids and schools, I think about Senator Murray 
because of her hands-on experience. But I can tell you that as a 
parent--now a grandparent--decrepit as you are, I say to the Senator 
from Illinois, and even a little more, in my younger days, I 
volunteered to work in the auxiliary, going down to schools in San 
Francisco where they needed volunteers, and this whole issue of keeping 
the kids busy after school is an education issue and it is a crime 
issue. A lot of people hear say they are tough on law and order. What 
better way than to give our children something to say yes to?
  The FBI tells us that between 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock are the hours 
kids get into trouble, when juvenile crime peaks. You don't need a 
degree in criminology and psychology to know that this makes sense. The 
President has a tremendous expansion of ``after school'' in his budget. 
We need to talk about that when we get this Ed-Flex bill before us. 
Kids should not be going into classrooms where they can't read because 
it is so musty. I have been in those rooms. I had to run out of one 
particular classroom in Sacramento, which was so musty because there 
were leaks that hadn't been fixed; it was a disaster. To think that our 
children are in that atmosphere--that is not right.
  After school children need to be kept busy, and during school they 
need small class sizes. We know what we have to do when we get a little 
bill that is very narrow here. And it may make some people feel happy 
that they are doing something. But I think it is our obligation--those 
of us on both sides of the aisle who care about our children--to point 
out that just passing a bill that has the title ``education'' in it 
doesn't mean that we are really doing right by our kids. It is just a 
sham. I am very proud to be here with my colleagues, and I am very much 
looking forward to this debate on the Ed-Flex bill, to make it a bill 
that really meets the needs of our young people.
  I yield back to my friend, Senator Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California. I notice that the 
Senator from Nevada is on the floor, and I know he wants to address 
some education issues. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Nevada, Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

[[Page 3147]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I want to express my 
appreciation to the senior Senator from Illinois for arranging this 
opportunity for us to talk about education.
  Mr. President, what I want to talk about today is an amendment that 
Senator Bingaman from New Mexico and I are going to offer on the Ed-
Flex bill. Senator Bingaman and I offered this amendment, which passed 
the Senate last year. The problem has gotten no less complicated and no 
less important. Every day in America 3,000 children drop out of high 
school; that is 500,000 a year. This is something about which this 
country should be embarrassed. ``So what,'' some say. Well, each child 
who drops out of high school is less than they could be.
  It also complicates societal matters by increasing the cost of 
welfare and the criminal justice system. It even complicates increasing 
costs in our educational system.
  If you look at the people in prison, 82 percent of the people in 
prison are high school dropouts. I repeat, 82 percent of the people in 
our prisons are high school dropouts. That should say it all.
  We need to be concerned about high school dropouts. We know 
statistically without any question that the children of dropouts have a 
much higher dropout rate than those who finish high school.
  The median income of college graduates is more than three times that 
of high school dropouts. The probability of falling into poverty is 
three times higher for high school dropouts than those who had finished 
high school. Unemployment rates of high school dropouts are more than 
twice those of high school graduates.
  The statistics are replete with evidence that we should do something 
about this. What should be done? There are a number of things that we 
can do.
  But the legislation that has been offered by Senator Bingaman and I, 
which will be an amendment to the legislation that will be before this 
body next week, would establish a department within our Department of 
Education whose sole function, sole responsibility, would be to focus 
on high school dropouts.
  There are programs around the country that some of the school 
districts have adopted mostly on a very small basis that work, and work 
quite well. We want someone to be gathering information to find out 
which of these programs work and which programs don't work.
  We would provide $30 million a year for this program, and a total of 
$150 million.
  Think of the money it costs us to keep people in prison. Is it 
$20,000 a year? Is it $30,000 a year. It is a huge amount of money to 
keep somebody in prison. Remember, Mr. President, that 82 percent of 
the people in prison are high school dropouts.
  Our legislation would establish within middle and high schools around 
the country--those that have high dropout rates--an ability to compete 
for grants that would enable them to implement proven and widely 
replicated models of comprehensive reform.
  The State of Nevada, I am not proud to say, leads the Nation in high 
school dropouts. I wish we didn't, but we do. We worked on a number of 
programs, one of which I am sure will be, if this legislation passes, 
one of the model programs. It is a program in Carson City, NV, our 
capital, where Hispanics are in a program called Ola, Carson City. It 
is a program where these young Hispanic students have a little TV 
station. They do TV programs. It has kept scores of these young people 
occupied and in high school. They are proud of the fact that they are 
going to be high school graduates. This is a program that has been 
going for 6 years.
  Mr. President, I don't know of anything that we could do that would 
be more important in the education field than keeping our young people 
in school; in high school. There are 3,000 dropouts a day; 500,000 a 
year.
  I hope that as we proceed through this debate, we will understand 
that the problems are not the same with every ethnic group.
  For example, in the State of Nevada, 25 percent of the students--
actually more than 25 percent of the students--in our Clark County 
school district, Metropolitan Las Vegas area, are Hispanic children. I 
am sorry to report that the Hispanic children have a dropout rate that 
is about 20 percent higher than any other ethnic group. Some ask why. 
There are a number of reasons. Most of the Hispanic students in Nevada 
come from Mexico. Mexico doesn't have a tradition of public education. 
There are at times language problems. And also one of the problems is 
Hispanics have such a great work ethic. They are willing to work as 
young kids, and they perform so well that their employers really do not 
in any way inspire these young people to complete high school. As a 
result of that, they are doing the same thing when they are 55 years 
old that they are doing when they are 16 or 17 years old.
  We need to recognize that within a few years. In fact, by the year 
2030, in America, Hispanics will make up 20 percent or more of our 
population. The Hispanic leaders in this country know that the most 
important thing for them is educating their youth. We have to 
participate so that we join with the Hispanic leaders in this country 
to keep Hispanic youth in high school.
  I hope that we all realize that this legislation, the Ed-Flex bill, 
is something that gives us a vehicle to focus on education.
  I heard the Senator from Illinois talk about the fact that we no 
longer are an agrarian society. Why should kids be out of school 3 
months out of the year in the summertime? Should we have year-round 
school? That is a debate that should take place.
  I remember when I went to the State legislature almost 30 years ago I 
talked about year-round schools. People laughed at me at the time. But 
now in Nevada we have year-round schools in a number of places, mainly 
because of the population growing so large they can't build the schools 
fast enough. And now we have year-round schools.
  In short, Senator Bingaman and I are going to do everything we can to 
see that this legislation passes.
  I, again, express my appreciation to the Senator from Illinois for 
allowing me to come and speak on this very important issue.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield for a 
question?
  Mr. REID. Yes. I also say, before yielding, as the Senator from 
Illinois has already pointed out, that it is tremendous to have someone 
who has been in the classroom teaching children. We talk about it from 
an outside perspective, but the Senator from Washington has been in 
effect in the trenches.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  I wanted to ask a question and share a story with him, because I 
think what we are talking about in terms of the dropout prevention is 
so important today.
  I am sure the question that the Senator from Nevada hears so often, 
and the Senator from Illinois hears so often in these debates today is, 
What role does the Federal Government have in this? Should this be a 
local decision? Should we just hand the dollars down to our local 
districts?
  What I want to share with you is that I met with a number of students 
last week in Washington State who had fallen through the cracks. I come 
from a State where the constitution says it is the paramount duty of 
the State to provide funding for education, and we do a good job. But 
we are struggling like everyone else with our budgets at home. This 
school happened to be in a district that has well-founded schools. This 
was a young student who had fallen through every single crack and 
dropped out of school. What brought him back was the Federally funded 
School-to-Work Program. When I asked the student if the Federal 
Government had a role, he said, ``Absolutely yes. You need to be there 
when everybody else fails.''
  I am wondering if the Senator from Nevada has heard that as well.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Washington, without question, the 
answer is yes. There are programs that work. I would also say that the 
Federal Government has to identify national

[[Page 3148]]

problems in all areas. Education is an area where we have to identify 
national problems. I believe that if there was ever a problem that this 
country has, it deals with high school dropouts.
  I repeat. There are 3,000 children a day dropping out of school. Can 
you imagine how much better society would be if we could keep only 500 
of those children in school so that we only--and I emphasis ``only''--
had 2,500 children dropping out of high school a day.
  I have heard every day the constant refrain that the Federal 
Government has no business dealing with local education.
  The program that Senator Bingaman and I are sponsoring is a program 
that gives local school districts absolute control. We are not telling 
them what to do. All we are saying is we are going to be a resource for 
you. Washington, DC, is going to be a resource. We have all of these 
programs that we have analyzed and evaluated. Here is how they work. If 
you have a problem in your school with a dropout, make an application 
and we will give you a grant and we will extend the money to the local 
school districts. They can implement the program, if they think it will 
help their kids.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Nevada will yield, I 
think it is interesting to step back for a second and look at what 
Congress does. We believe that because there is a problem of crime in 
America, we should Federalize a lot of crimes. Even the Chief Justice 
of the United States recently noted that if we continue this trend of 
Federalizing crime, we are going to dramatically change law enforcement 
in the United States. The enforcement of laws involving crime used to 
be a State and local responsibility. But because of our interest on 
Capitol Hill in crime, we continue to Federalize more and more crime. 
Yet, when it comes to prevention programs such as the one suggested by 
the Senator from Nevada, many people argue, ``Keep your hands off.'' If 
you want to prevent crime, it has to be done at the State and local 
basis.
  I hope we can find a balance here.
  As I traveled around Illinois, I found some extraordinary ideas 
coming out of local school districts about afterschool programs, 
bringing kids up to the reading levels in school, remedial activities, 
and the like. I want to express that.
  I notice the Senator from Nevada was careful to say that he wanted to 
see this local creativity, that we were not going to send down a 
Federal rule book, a manual of instruction. We are looking for results. 
We want accountability. I think if we take that approach, we can build 
Federal programs that are welcomed at the local level, and not 
rejected.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Illinois, I keep throwing these 
statistics out because to me they are overwhelming. They are 
mindboggling. I didn't take a lot of mathematics courses in high school 
or college. But I don't have to be a mathematician to understand that 
82 percent of people who are in prison who are not high school 
graduates, that there is some reason people who do not graduate from 
high school are more likely to go to prison. We have to recognize if we 
can keep kids in high school, we are going to keep them out of prison. 
I don't know how much more we need to talk about prevention. That is 
one of the biggest prevention programs. We don't need to build youth 
centers, although that is a help. We don't have to come up with new 
inventions every day to keep kids in school to realize that if we keep 
them in school we keep them out of prison.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I 
thank the Senator from Nevada for his work on this extremely important 
issue and wish him well as he offers this amendment next week on this 
important bill. I thank my colleagues for allowing us today to talk 
about issues that are really going to make a difference in our 
classrooms across the country.
  Mr. President, across this country families are having conversations 
at their breakfast tables about how we can improve education. They are 
talking about reducing class size. They are talking about afterschool 
programs. They are talking about dropout prevention. They are talking 
about teacher training, because parents know that is what is going to 
make a difference for their own child, for their family, for their 
neighborhood, and for their community. That is the type of conversation 
we need to be having on this floor in this Senate in this Congress, as 
well. I am delighted that we are finally going to have the opportunity 
to do that.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that one of the first bills that is going 
to be considered is S. 280, which is the Ed-Flex bill. It is a bill 
that will help States develop new and innovative programs, and it is an 
important issue and one that I am glad we are going to address and that 
I am happy to support.
  I think it is really important to note that merely improving the 
process is not enough. We also have to make an immediate and a direct 
impact on the overcrowded classrooms that our children across this 
country find themselves in every single day in this country.
  That is why I am going to be introducing an amendment that will 
authorize a 6-year effort to continue to help local school districts 
hire 100,000 new, well-trained teachers nationally to begin to reduce 
class size in first through third grade where it will have the most 
impact.
  My amendment builds on the bipartisan success of last year's 
agreement. It is based on local control and flexibility, and it focuses 
on improving teacher quality, which is so important. Local school 
districts will make all the decisions about hiring and training their 
new teachers. Any school district that has already reduced class size 
in those early grades to 18 or fewer students will be able to use the 
funds to either further reduce class size in the early grades or to 
reduce class size in other grades or carry out activities to help 
improve teacher quality.
  My amendment will also provide accountability and ensure that schools 
communicate with parents which is so essential today. These funds are 
supplementary, and they cannot replace current spending on teachers or 
teachers' salaries. School districts will be required to send a report 
card in easily understood language to their local community including 
information about how achievement has improved as a result of reducing 
class size, and they won't have to fill out any new forms. Reducing red 
tape and improving local decisionmaking in education programs is a 
bipartisan effort, and both Ed-Flex and my class size reduction 
amendment accomplish both.
  Last year's bipartisan agreement that we reached included my 
legislation to provide $1.2 billion as a downpayment on the goal of 
hiring 100,000 new teachers, and it did it without requiring any new 
reports or any new forms. Governors and legislators across this country 
are now responding to our budget agreement last year and addressing 
this at their local levels. Local school districts are putting together 
their budgets right now as we speak and teachers are writing their 
lesson plans for next year with the expectation that we will deliver on 
the promise that we made to them last year. They are all counting on 
us. We must take this opportunity to now fulfill our commitment to 
reduce class size.
  Mr. President, smaller classes mean a better education for children. 
Studies have shown it. Teachers know it. Parents know it. And they know 
it from experience. I have seen it with my own eyes. Controlling a room 
of 30 children is not teaching. It's crowd control. We need to return 
to teaching.
  Just yesterday, I heard from Christi Rennebohn-Franz, who is a first 
and second grade teacher in Pullman, WA, and she wrote and told me that 
``without small class sizes, we cannot reach all children and give them 
the time that they deserve. If you have too many students in your 
class, you go home every day knowing that you came up short giving them 
the attention they need.''
  Another teacher from Fircrest, WA, wrote to me to say that ``since I 
teach at an at-risk school, lower class size

[[Page 3149]]

means that I can more effectively work with students on a variety of 
problems they bring to my classroom every day.''
  Mr. President, I am looking forward to working with Senators from 
both sides of the aisle to ensure that we meet our promise to these 
teachers and all the other parents and students across America to 
reduce class size and truly make a difference in the education of our 
children and our country's future.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________